Forum:Wake Island -- Article Unification
- 15:40, December 30, 2011 (UTC) :There's no limit on page length; if that's the case perhaps it's time to split M16, eh? Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 18:03, December 30, 2011 (UTC) The page length is irrelevant. If you really cared about loading times, you could split the page up into subpages, like "Wake Island/Battlefield 3". I think it would be better if all of the Wake Island pages were consolidated into one "Wake Island" page. --Callofduty4 16:11, December 30, 2011 (UTC) Well, I'm sure as hell glad that I'm not the only one who thinks splitting the pages was ludicrous to start with. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 18:03, December 30, 2011 (UTC) If it's that necessary, we could CoD4's suggestion to make subpages. Other than that, my general idea was to make the needed information to the Flags since they're all the same and lay down relevant pics of each version, we may even do vehicle section to each flag according to version (and if it matches, put them togheter). No big need to take the same info into each page if it's going to be substancially the same. I'll keep the work on my sandbox, feel free to change what you think it's not too well placed. Pedro9basket ([[User talk:Pedro9basket|talk]]) 19:43, December 30, 2011 (UTC) :The reason for this split was because the page length with images and all would take forever to load on slower connections. I know many of us have a decent connection, but there are people out there who live in the dark ages and use AOL and Netscape (all two of them, but still). :And Yuri, we might actually want to split the M16, but the problem is that its been featured in nearly every BF game, and as every variant. Its arguable that the one in BC1 is an A3, which would allow grouping with the BF3 one, and the M16 from 'Nam and BC2V are one in the same, as are the M16A2's from BF2, BFP4F, and BC2. That only leaves the A4 from BF3 out of the picture as separate. However, having an article for four variants of the same weapon is stupid. :Maps on the other hand, can get real tricky. They are supposed to have images of important features of the map, such as spawn points, vehicle spawns, flags, MCOMM locations, etc. And all of those pictures on a single page for six variants of a map would make Wake Island take a year to load on slow connections. If anything, BFH's variant, Wicked Wake, should be separate as it is the most different with spawn islands rather than carriers/fleets. :Granted, we don't have images for all the variants of Wake Island yet, but that will change in the future, and thus, it should stay split by era, i.e. WII Wakes (1942/43 and WWII Mod), WWIII Wakes (BF2/3), and the WWIV Wake (2142). That's my stance on it. If we decide to keep it as-is, we may need to look into doing something about M16. Perhaps my suggestion of splitting to variants, or maybe something better. 19:59, December 30, 2011 (UTC) ::PE, what you just wrote was pretty contradictory. The BF3 section of M16 alone has what, ten or so images? Combined with all the others and we have about the same amount of images as a full-constructed Wake Island page. And what's so stupid about having articles for different variants of the same weapon when we obviously endorse having multiple articles for different variants of the same map? I opt for uniformity. Articles should not (or at least rarely) have special exceptions made about them, be it the vehicle naming debacle or this one. ::I am also a proponent of making the articles into subpages of Wake Island proper. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 20:22, December 30, 2011 (UTC) :::Was it contradictory? Well I obviously need moar coffee then... Regardless, I feel keeping Wake split into eras its featured in is the best course of action to allow those with ancient internets to not have to wait a year to see the page in full. If it means we should split other articles that are of similar length due to inclusion in so many games, then so be it. 23:40, December 30, 2011 (UTC) Should we vote for a consensus? Because Wake isn't the only case. Karkand and M16 are another cases of very long pages due to multiple appearances. Again, I'm with uniformity as well, giving the reader all information he needs without bothering finding the game conflict's year. It may be a bit slower to load yea, but that doesn't end up profitable to everyone else that has the Internet speed and seeks for the full info. Pedro9basket ([[User talk:Pedro9basket|talk]]) 23:47, December 30, 2011 (UTC) :Might as well. Seems like we have enough viewpoints. I'll let you do the honors, as you are the current forum-master (i.e. you created this thread). 23:56, December 30, 2011 (UTC) Can I just slide in my view before we do... A perfect page incorporating all of them would be way too long to be sustainable (We can't just assume because most people have good connections that it's acceptable. We have to be inclusive, not elitist). Pedro's sandbox example is sufficiently short, but suffers '''badly from terrible quality. For that reason, I stand by the view that they should remain split - especially since they are actually so different anyway really. I also don't like COD4's idea for subpages - from a formatting point of view it would look bloody awful, but also would be no real improvement on the current arrangement anyway, so what would be the point? As for other pages in similar situations, I don't think the others that have been pointed out suffer as badly as a united Wake would (assuming it was complete, currently they're quite a way off perfection), but I wouldn't necessarily disagree with splitting them too. Basically, I've just taken a long time to say I agree with Eden... - 00:15, December 31, 2011 (UTC) : My sandbox is still a scrap for a stub to a brief test of what will it be and it'd take a few weeks to get it right, and would be nowhere near as small as it is as of now. If anything, this adds to your point. Pedro9basket ([[User talk:Pedro9basket|''talk'']]) 00:26, December 31, 2011 (UTC) : }}